Maybe some of you can shed some light on a prophesy that I was told sometime ago but never really saw the scriptures to back it up. I was told that during the end times there would be a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. I'm not sure how accurate that is but If some of you are, I'd appreciate it if you could post the scriptures.

I just read that on CNN. On the page Ms. Rice states that a treaty between Israel and the Palestinians will not occur under the bush administration but due to his diligence it will in the future.

Joe King

Nov 7th 2008, 02:48 AM

I think it is in Daniel and in the 70th week, if I'm not mistaken.

quiet dove

Nov 7th 2008, 03:59 AM

This is probably the main verse you are looking for. (which is the before mentioned Daniels 70th week)

Dan 9:27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."

It is a much disputed verse, but there are many, including myself who believe this speaks of end times and an agreement between Israel and the nations.

That does not mean that if Rice were to reach a peace agreement tomorrow it would be the above agreement, there are many factors to consider. One factor would be that the above agreement is between a specific leader and Israel.

ServantoftheKing

Nov 7th 2008, 04:36 AM

Recently I raised this question in another thread regarding the use of the phrase "peace treaty", which went unanswered. Daniel 9:27 does not say "peace treaty". In the New American Standard Bible it says the following:

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is pour out on the one who makes desolate.

All it says is "he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week". We are not given sufficient information so as to conclude that the terms of the covenant are in regards to war and peace. I'm not saying that it isn't about war and peace (it still could be), but we are putting our own ideas into the Scripture when we say that it is definitely referring to a "peace treaty".

Since it is not clear that it is a peace treaty, could we be looking the wrong way? Is it possible that it has already been confirmed? From a futurist's perspective, the Antichrist is not revealed until the abomination that causes desolation (2 Thess 2:1-4), not the confirmation of the covenant. This may already be confirmed and not be common public knowledge.

Just something to think about.

God Bless,
ServantoftheKing

RevLogos

Nov 7th 2008, 04:37 AM

This is probably the main verse you are looking for. (which is the before mentioned Daniels 70th week)

Dan 9:27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."

It is a much disputed verse, but there are many, including myself who believe this speaks of end times and an agreement between Israel and the nations.

That does not mean that if Rice were to reach a peace agreement tomorrow it would be the above agreement, there are many factors to consider. One factor would be that the above agreement is between a specific leader and Israel.

The dispute is that until dispensationalism, Dan 9:27 was interpreted as having already occurred - fulfilled in Christ. A whole topic in itself.

In the New Testament, I am thinking of this:

1Th 5:3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

What this suggests is a belief in peace and safety - possibly in the form of a peace treaty between Islamic forces and Israel. The peace and safety is false though, and whatever treaty this is, gets broken with great violence.

scourge39

Nov 7th 2008, 06:13 AM

The dispute is that until dispensationalism, Dan 9:27 was interpreted as having already occurred - fulfilled in Christ. A whole topic in itself.

You got it! The 'middle of the week' refers to Jesus' earthly 3 and a half year earthly ministry. The 'end to sacrifice and offering' refers to his sacrificial death. The rest of the verse predicts the temple's eventual destruction.

quiet dove

Nov 7th 2008, 06:29 AM

The OP has asked a question, I answered it from my view. If you would like to do the same, by all means do so, but don't turn the thread into yet another heated Daniel 9:27 debate.

locboxx

Nov 7th 2008, 08:38 AM

The peace treaty will be signed by the anti-christ and the church will be raptured sometime before that or at the time of the signing. thats from a literal interpretation of the Bible and people call it pre-tribulation rapture.

ross3421

Nov 7th 2008, 11:48 AM

This is probably the main verse you are looking for. (which is the before mentioned Daniels 70th week)

Dan 9:27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."

It is a much disputed verse, but there are many, including myself who believe this speaks of end times and an agreement between Israel and the nations.

That does not mean that if Rice were to reach a peace agreement tomorrow it would be the above agreement, there are many factors to consider. One factor would be that the above agreement is between a specific leader and Israel.

Da 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

Da 9:16 O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

He = God
Many = Israel (REMNANT)
Covenant = Abrahamic

Da 9:27 And GOD shall confirm the covenant with ISRAEL for one week: and in the midst of the week GOD shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations GOD shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This following would be the "treaty" made with AC and the wicked of Israel.

Da 11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

daughter

Nov 7th 2008, 12:31 PM

on the wing of abominations
Here is something I've been pondering. We know that Biblical prophecy is fulfilled several times in history, and that we've already had at least two abominations of desolation on the Temple Mount. There was the abomination of desolation which occurred under Antiochus the fourth (I think...), where the Greek ruler took over the Temple, erected a statue to Zeus, and sacrificed a pig in the Holy of Holies.

Not surprisingly there was an uprising, and the subsequent cleansing and rededication of the Temple is still celebrated at Hannukah.

Then there was the Roman destruction of the Temple, and all the blood shed and desolation that followed.

But what about now? What about the Mosque on Temple Mount? Isn't that also an abomination that desolates?

I'm not saying there won't be a future temple, or that there won't be a future abomination of desolation, but sometimes I wonder if we're not missing something in prophecy. Perhaps it's less like a train timetable (as in "next stop, the tribulation") and more like a series of prophetic images overlaid on top of each other, like transparencies on glass... seen together they form the "big picture." But they can also be experienced individually as well.

I can't really think of how to describe what I mean... hope this makes some kind of sense.

IamBill

Nov 7th 2008, 05:33 PM

Here is something I've been pondering.
...
more like a series of prophetic images overlaid on top of each other, like transparencies on glass... seen together they form the "big picture." But they can also be experienced individually as well.

I can't really think of how to describe what I mean... hope this makes some kind of sense.

-wow
I have used the term "Layers", then tried to explain what I was talking about nearly as you have. (i think i used an "overhead projector" as example)
So... ""hope this makes some kind of sense"" ....to me, YES

My mental picture was something like stained glass... literally I can see it in my head, when I close my eyes and ponder it. The same thing happened with the coming of Messiah - the suffering servant is superimposed over the Triumphant Victor, and if you insist on everything in the composite image happening at once, then you will be disappointed.

But I'm really glad I made sense. Sometimes I feel I'm speaking Swahili in the Gaeltacht, considering the looks I've got when attempting to explain my theory!

third hero

Nov 7th 2008, 06:00 PM

Concerning the OP, (since I have determined to not debate issues with those who have agendas), the truth of the matter is that many sign-watchers attribute Daniel 9:27 as the specific prophecy that details a treaty that Israel is to have with "many". Most of us tend to believe that the prophecy will be fulfilled by the one who will become the Beast, (what others call the AntiChrist).

It is my opinion, however, that a peace accord between Israel and her neighbors will be made BEFORE the Beast confirms it. It is also my opinion that the peace accord is what is going to spark the great bloody war that is found in Revelation 9. (The sixth trumpet). The Beast will simultaneously rise to prominence and end that bloody war by confirming the original peace accord that started the war in the first place.

My evidence? The word "Confirm" which is stated in Daniel 9:27.

Hope this helps a little.

leebee

Nov 7th 2008, 06:23 PM

What about now What about the Mosque on Temple Mount? Isn't that also an abomination that desolates?

I'm not saying there won't be a future temple, or that there won't be a future abomination of desolation, but sometimes I wonder if we're not missing something in prophecy.

Sorry if this is a little off topic but i think it may have something to do with a peace deal.

I have thought this very same thing. I have also read that there is enough room remaining on the mount for another Temple of the proportions spoken of in the bible. Now the thing to consider is-- The arabs have hardly ever lived up to their part of any agreement with the Jews. What would happen if the Jews started building a new Temple alongside the muslim temple as part of a peace agreement? Would God protect them? Imagine the chaos that would ensue.--Whoaa!!
Jesus is the only way.

IamBill

Nov 7th 2008, 06:28 PM

Maybe some of you can shed some light on a prophesy that I was told sometime ago but never really saw the scriptures to back it up. I was told that during the end times there would be a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. I'm not sure how accurate that is but If some of you are, I'd appreciate it if you could post the scriptures.

I just read that on CNN. On the page Ms. Rice states that a treaty between Israel and the Palestinians will not occur under the bush administration but due to his diligence it will in the future.

:)

I hope no one takes this as a stab at their views -
Every form of administration in the US(or anywhere), IS going to either work toward or away from "peace" over there. (...or neutral)
It is part of "Foreign policies".
(Bush even called his the [I think] - "seven year road map" ?? )

I'm just saying that, for those convinced of a "peace treaty", I think it's safe to relax and wait until one is in place and working. :hug:

quiet dove

Nov 7th 2008, 06:34 PM

But I'm really glad I made sense. Sometimes I feel I'm speaking Swahili in the Gaeltacht, considering the looks I've got when attempting to explain my theory!

Thats the beauty of the board, you can't actually see the funny looks.:lol:

quiet dove

Nov 7th 2008, 06:37 PM

:)

I'm just saying that, for those convinced of a "peace treaty", I think it's safe to relax and wait until one is in place and working. :hug:

I agree. Watching is really all we can do and while it makes for interesting speculation, and usually prompts study of the Word, which of course is always good, at the same time, anything could happen over there and we have to just watch to see if it is prophetic or yet another step toward the prophetic.

Agyei

Nov 9th 2008, 02:26 PM

I agree. Watching is really all we can do and while it makes for interesting speculation, and usually prompts study of the Word, which of course is always good, at the same time, anything could happen over there and we have to just watch to see if it is prophetic or yet another step toward the prophetic.

I agree. Also, Sometimes we can get too carried away with what we see in the news and assume doomsday is tomorrow. Thanks for the help guys, Ill be going over those scriptures. ;)

vinsight4u8

Nov 9th 2008, 03:04 PM

Daniel 9:27 speaks of a he that Daniel should seem to be understanding whom this he is. If you let this ac person be the same one as found in Daniel 11:21 - then you can see that he will break the prince of the covenant person.

Daniel 11:21
"..shall stand up a vile person..."
V22
"And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown...broken...also the prince of the covenant."
,,,as in there is already a covenant - and the vile person will take down that guy of it
V23
"And after the league [made] with him, he shall work deceitfully..."

I see this prince of the covenant part as having to do with the fact that a huge war takes place in verses 15-19 and then the V20 guy of the north place ///Iraq - rules, raises taxes - dies by neither anger nor war.

Daniel 9:27:
This "confirming" many Bible scholars believe Scripture actually says the coming Antichrist will "confirm," or "make strong," an existing agreement for seven years -- not make a new one.

The Jews think that there Messiah will be the one to build their next temple, so that they may re-initiate the Sacrifices; The Anti-christ builds the third temple.

Rev 11:1 And a reed like a staff was given to me, and the angel stood, saying, Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those worshiping in it.
:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and do not measure it. For it was given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city forty two months.
Note:When they rebuild the new temple, they will leave out the outer court and I believe they will rebuild the dome right next to it when there is a "false peace". This explains the “giving it to the nations” The foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock which are on the Temple Mount at this moment are old and unstable, part of the structure is unsound and may collapse. When this happens, it will give way for the rebuilding of the new Temple.

This will be the chance for that "person" to step in.

wombat

Nov 9th 2008, 07:09 PM

-wow I have used the term "Layers", then tried to explain what I was talking about nearly as you have. (i think i used an "overhead projector" as example) So... ""hope this makes some kind of sense"" ....to me, YES I'm not sure why -I feel there is three.
Hi, Daughter and IamBill! I too have this sense that there are layers to Bible prophecy, and it seems to me almost as if God is giving us clues as to the finale with each layer, history repeating itself in types and examples for us to look at what will happen in the end.

wombat

Nov 9th 2008, 07:18 PM

It is my opinion, however, that a peace accord between Israel and her neighbors will be made BEFORE the Beast confirms it. My evidence? The word "Confirm" which is stated in Daniel 9:27.

Hi, Third Hero! I have noticed this word "confirm" too, and have come to the same conclusion as you in that I have a suspicion that the one who confirms the treaty will not necessarily be the same one who brings it about, but will be a third party, perhaps even someone who will offer to enforce it.

DurbanDude

Nov 12th 2008, 07:11 AM

Maybe some of you can shed some light on a prophesy that I was told sometime ago but never really saw the scriptures to back it up. I was told that during the end times there would be a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. I'm not sure how accurate that is but If some of you are, I'd appreciate it if you could post the scriptures.

I just read that on CNN. On the page Ms. Rice states that a treaty between Israel and the Palestinians will not occur under the bush administration but due to his diligence it will in the future.

I truly believe there will be an eventual alliance between Israel and Arab countries, the bible predicts the antichrist will rule over the whole earth, listing which Middle East regions the antichrist has direct control over,and listing those which he will not have direct control over.

However the verse that many interpreters use concerning a peace treaty is Daniel 9:27 as many above have attested. I am definitely not a preterist , but like the preterists I believe when Jesus began his ministry it was in the timing of Daniel's 70 sevens and Jesus himself confirmed that his commencement of his ministry is the fulfilment of the covenant God had with Israel to send a Messiah. Thus we have a great covenant confirmed in year 483 of Daniel's 490 year period as expected, so I personally believe that there is no biblical evidence for a future seven year treaty.

Incidentally , those that believe in a future seven year treaty don't realise that their very belief contradicts itself, because most of them also believe that the treaty will be broken after 3.5 years, but the bible says this treaty will last for seven years.

leebee

Nov 12th 2008, 01:17 PM

so I personally believe that there is no biblical evidence for a future seven year treaty.

but the bible says this treaty will last for seven years.

Dude, did you just contradict yourself?:hmm:

jen74

Nov 12th 2008, 02:02 PM

Here is something I've been pondering. We know that Biblical prophecy is fulfilled several times in history, and that we've already had at least two abominations of desolation on the Temple Mount. There was the abomination of desolation which occurred under Antiochus the fourth (I think...), where the Greek ruler took over the Temple, erected a statue to Zeus, and sacrificed a pig in the Holy of Holies.

Not surprisingly there was an uprising, and the subsequent cleansing and rededication of the Temple is still celebrated at Hannukah.

Then there was the Roman destruction of the Temple, and all the blood shed and desolation that followed.

But what about now? What about the Mosque on Temple Mount? Isn't that also an abomination that desolates?

I'm not saying there won't be a future temple, or that there won't be a future abomination of desolation, but sometimes I wonder if we're not missing something in prophecy. Perhaps it's less like a train timetable (as in "next stop, the tribulation") and more like a series of prophetic images overlaid on top of each other, like transparencies on glass... seen together they form the "big picture." But they can also be experienced individually as well.

I can't really think of how to describe what I mean... hope this makes some kind of sense.

That is exactly what I have been thinking. It is like the churches in Revelations. They were churches in that time but they could represent the church at any given time in history, they could represent even the believers heart in any time period. God is multi faceted and we can not understand his deep and complexity. He is not one dimensional or linear but in his wholeness we could never comprehend.
Very good post! I like the way you think.

DurbanDude

Nov 12th 2008, 02:19 PM

Dude, did you just contradict yourself?:hmm:

No leebee , read my post ;)

Jesus confirmed the Messianic covenant. Jesus is the fulfilment of the covenant that a Messiah would save Israel. Jesus' ministry began 483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes was issued, perfect timing.

Therefore I believe there is no FUTURE 7 year treaty.

quiet dove

Nov 12th 2008, 07:14 PM

Incidentally , those that believe in a future seven year treaty don't realise that their very belief contradicts itself, because most of them also believe that the treaty will be broken after 3.5 years, but the bible says this treaty will last for seven years.

The Bible also says it will be broken half way through. Making a treaty and keeping it are two different things. And a seven year period is a seven year period regardless of whether or not the treaty is broken. Revelation also supports seven years, but thats going to get complicated and beyond the realm of this thread.

mizzdy

Nov 12th 2008, 07:35 PM

I often think that when someone whether it be a US prez or Tony Blair or someone else is going to come along as Israel is at war who makes it all stop and go away then that person may stand up on the temple mount and declare to the world, 'look what I did that even God hasn't down all these mills., I made peace in Israel' setting himself up as higher and smarter than God. Or it could go another way which ever way it will happen and we all may just see it. I have been leaning towards Christ fullfilling Dan. with His life and ministry also and it does make for great discussions between my husband and myself! :lol:

DurbanDude

Nov 13th 2008, 06:50 AM

The Bible also says it will be broken half way through. Making a treaty and keeping it are two different things. And a seven year period is a seven year period regardless of whether or not the treaty is broken. Revelation also supports seven years, but thats going to get complicated and beyond the realm of this thread.

QD , the bible does not say that the treaty will be broken half way through , that is merely your interpretation of the bible . What the bible says is that the person who confirms the covenant will be the person who puts an end to sacrifice and offering 3.5 years later (halfway through the seven years). It says nothing about that treaty relating to the sacrifices and offerings. I think you are making assumptions here. Jesus confirmed the covenant between God and Israel , and Jesus himself through the crucifixion put an end to sacrifice and offering exactly 3.5 years later. The bible does not indicate that any treaty needs to be broken in order for sacrifices to end.

Any further biblical indication of an antichrist breaking any treaty does not indicate the timing as being half way through that 7 year treaty as you say, so there is no biblical evidence for that statement.

KJV Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

In an earlier post Dialectic said :
Daniel 9:27:
This "confirming" many Bible scholars believe Scripture actually says the coming Antichrist will "confirm," or "make strong," an existing agreement for seven years -- not make a new one.

quiet dove

Nov 13th 2008, 07:16 PM

QD , the bible does not say that the treaty will be broken half way through , that is merely your interpretation of the bible . What the bible says is that the person who confirms the covenant will be the person who puts an end to sacrifice and offering 3.5 years later (halfway through the seven years). It says nothing about that treaty relating to the sacrifices and offerings. I think you are making assumptions here. Jesus confirmed the covenant between God and Israel , and Jesus himself through the crucifixion put an end to sacrifice and offering exactly 3.5 years later. The bible does not indicate that any treaty needs to be broken in order for sacrifices to end.

Any further biblical indication of an antichrist breaking any treaty does not indicate the timing as being half way through that 7 year treaty as you say, so there is no biblical evidence for that statement.

KJV Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

In an earlier post Dialectic said :
Daniel 9:27:
This "confirming" many Bible scholars believe Scripture actually says the coming Antichrist will "confirm," or "make strong," an existing agreement for seven years -- not make a new one.

Obviously, which would be true for me, you and everyone else here

Making, confirming, re-confirming,... either way, seven years is what it's done for, and mid way, something in that agreement changes, if it was not agreed that the sacrifices could be made in the first place, there would be no need of stopping it "midst of the week". And as far as the Jews and their religion, stopping sacrifices that had been agreed to would probably be a deal breaker.

DurbanDude

Nov 14th 2008, 08:24 AM

Obviously, which would be true for me, you and everyone else here

Making, confirming, re-confirming,... either way, seven years is what it's done for, and mid way, something in that agreement changes, if it was not agreed that the sacrifices could be made in the first place, there would be no need of stopping it "midst of the week". And as far as the Jews and their religion, stopping sacrifices that had been agreed to would probably be a deal breaker.

QD, I hope that I would never say "the bible says ......" if the bible does not say that. I try my best to keep interpretations and actual statements of what the bible states separate. I think it is possible to debate a point and maintain biblical integrity.

quiet dove

Nov 14th 2008, 06:01 PM

QD, I hope that I would never say "the bible says ......" if the bible does not say that. I try my best to keep interpretations and actual statements of what the bible states separate. I think it is possible to debate a point and maintain biblical integrity.

So you are stating your interpretation, thats what we all do and we all, obviously, state our interpretation based on what we believe the Bible says. Why would I state someone elses interpretation, especially if I disagree with it?

Your mad because I said "the Bible says" and you disagree with my interpretation. So you didn't like my wording, and you told me it was in my opion, fine, we do that to each other every day here.

I hope that I would never say "the bible says ......" if the bible does not say that.

Am I mistaken or does your discussion here not reflect what you believe the Bible says? You sure put up a lot of debate for someone who is not making a claim about what the Bible says.

DurbanDude

Nov 15th 2008, 06:45 AM

So you are stating your interpretation, thats what we all do and we all, obviously, state our interpretation based on what we believe the Bible says. Why would I state someone elses interpretation, especially if I disagree with it?

Your mad because I said "the Bible says" and you disagree with my interpretation. So you didn't like my wording, and you told me it was in my opion, fine, we do that to each other every day here.

Am I mistaken or does your discussion here not reflect what you believe the Bible says? You sure put up a lot of debate for someone who is not making a claim about what the Bible says.

Okay,okay I back down here :giveup:

I guess we should have some leeway to express our beliefs as facts , otherwise we would have to watch our wording too much which can be difficult , sorry for nitpicking.